Most American cars fail after 10 years and look quite beaten up. Japanese cars used to last 20-30 years but I think Toyota and Honda are the only brands that have kept up this reputation, and even then not all that well.
All this has to do with the fact that people don't have money to upgrade to the latest lease.
My 1979 Honda CVCC is going as strong as ever. I swapped the engine/transmission out once, but the engine was still running fine, I just wanted the 5-speed. A cheap repaint in 2013, and AFAIC it's good for another 20.
Wow. I'm impressed. There's something about completely ordinary old cars that look so pristine after a few decades. I saw a Datsun B210 the other day that was similarly cared for and it impresses me more than most classic muscle cars. Everyone expects a '68 Camaro to look awesome; nobody expects the same from a '79 Honda.
Thanks! And you're right. Many years ago, I used to feel a little silly about maintaining what was essentially an inexpensive economy car. But it was the first car I bought with my own money in college (for the princely sum of $500 in 1992), and I just really enjoy driving it around town. It's so small I can park anywhere, and it gets 30-40 MPG.
And nowadays, it gets lots of positive comments. Turns out the muscle car/classic car guys like seeing the old stuff no matter what it is.
California in general is pretty easy on cars, but if you live close to the ocean, salt air is still an issue. The majority of the rust my CVCC got was during the few years I lived near the beach.
Compared to a modern car? Not even the same scale.
It is 'safe' for the time, in that it's a unibody steel shell, which is more resilient than the body-on-frame style that was common in the era. It would probably handle a rollover OK. The bumpers are solid. There is an anti-whiplash head restraint, and the seatbelts work as expected.
But there are no reinforced bars to prevent cabin intrusion from a side impact, and crumple zones are nonexistent. No airbags.
So I don't really drive it on the freeway. It's an around-town runabout. On the 35mph-and-lower roads it spends 99% of its time, It's fine. It is undoubtedly safer than the motorcycle I would likely otherwise be riding.
For distance driving, I use my 'new' car, a '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee. Which is probably still bad compared to a truly modern vehicle, but is much safer (and more comfortable) than the CVCC. And the ZJs were great years for Cherokees. The straight-6 is practically indestructible, and the transmission will last forever. If I keep maintaining it as well, it should last for easily another 10-20.
(Not having a car payment, and having insurance payments of <$100/month for both, is nice.)
"All this has to do with the fact that people don't have money to upgrade to the latest lease."
1. A lot of folks still find leasing cars to be a bad money decision due to restrictions on miles, messes that families make, and never actually owning the car.
2. I truly think this is more that many don't have the money to properly care for the car. I've seen folks that do all the maintenance and fix problems as they arrive. 500,000 miles (800,000km) later, their cars are still running, though they look worse for wear.
Honda mechanicals, absolutely. Honda paint, on the other hand, just doesn't seem to hold up as well as other brands.
Meanwhile whatever godforsaken toxic chemical Mercedes Benz was putting in their paints in the 70s and 80s seems to have left those cars impervious to dulling and fading.
All this has to do with the fact that people don't have money to upgrade to the latest lease.